Theological Quandaries 101

Kayless · Post by **Kayless** » Wed May 30, 2001 8:37 am

Normally I'd try to help stir discussion but I've too been busy lately to do anything much more then lurk.

nael · Post by **nael** » Sun Jun 03, 2001 2:05 am

pretty much only southern baptists claim that the earth is only 4ooo years old. most christians understand that the creation story is more symbolic than literal. please don't lump all christians into one category, that is the biggest hinderance to a good conversation. it would be liek me saying that since scientologists think we came from the alien overlord Xenu, that all nonchristians believe this same thing. just because there are extremes out there, do nto confuse them withthe norm.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Sun Jun 03, 2001 2:10 am

I don't think any body was saying that all chrisitans belived in creation some 6000-4000 years ago

, only that some do.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sun Jun 03, 2001 3:13 pm

I would believe most Christians do not believe the earth is 6000 years old.

The Pope Pius XII wrote already 1950 that biological evolution in fully compatible with Christianity.

Pope John Paul II stated this 1981:

"The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. . . . Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how the heavens were made but how one goes to heaven."

What has the current pope said about the issue?

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Mon Jun 04, 2001 5:23 am

IMHO there is evidence to support the theory, but then there is evidence to support any theory, one can in essence make any statement and back it up with some evidence, i mean who was here 6000 years ago to argue with the issue.

I could for instance say that i know Evolution is true, there is evidence that agrees with this theory, but then there is evidence which directly argues against it, because there are no factual truths for either theories (only that we exist and age and bear similarities to other creatures), we have to come to our own independent explanations (however tainted they may be).

Not as well explained as how it works in my head, but i think most of you probably ge tthe gist of my mumbling

Waverly · Post by **Waverly** » Mon Jun 04, 2001 5:24 am

*sob* <Waverly the Skeptic mourns the death of logic

>

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Mon Jun 04, 2001 6:22 am

Explain?

BTW you can not generally have CAPS in a web address

Waverly · Post by **Waverly** » Mon Jun 04, 2001 6:43 am

@Sleep: With all due respect to the persons quoted:

In the same way, I believe that every human being has spiritual cancer (a malignant tumor called sin), and that the only cure for it is faith in Christ. I am obligated , therefore, to share my faith. Jesus did so when he was here. He commanded me to do so as well.
Skeptics and doubters full of sound and fury can rail all they want, but that's pretty much all they will do and can do, while Christians continue to convert non-Christians one by one by one, not with philosophy, truncated principles and fine-sounding arguments, but with their courage, faith and lives.

Do you have more credibility than Christ?
Should I believe in Jesus Christ... or you?
Should I believe in the Bible, or the books that you have read?
What can you promise me after I die? Are any better than the ones promised by Christ?
If I follow your teachings, will I be happier and more secure in the truth than I am now with Christ?

There is also evidence that suggets that the Earth is only 6000 years old, there is just as much evidence to proove this as the evolution angle.
If anyone is interested in finding out more about these bizaare but possible explanations, look up a Dr Kent Hovind, some of his teachings are quite enlightening.

Just because I find an argument irrational doesn’t mean I could like the person any less… err

you get the picture

Edit: Hovind?! Oh god (irony intended), are you trying to lure me into an ad hominem attack

[ 06-04-2001: Message edited by: Waverly ]

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Mon Jun 04, 2001 7:11 am

I remeber a time when you would have royally flamed me and i would have returned the complement, ahhhhh, now we are playing nice.

I am saying keep perspective, your knowledge has taught that the evolution theory is the most sound one for you and your beleifs, my knowledge has taught me that the evolution theory doesn't work for me and my beliefs.

Waverly · Post by **Waverly** » Mon Jun 04, 2001 7:17 am

Sleep, do you mean that 'natural selection' as a theory doesn't work for you, or do you mean to simply say 'creationism' make sense?

I ask because 'evolution' in and of itself, removed from any theories on what drives it, should be considered fact. That over the course of generations a species can undergo change is quite observable by scientist and religious zealot alike.

edit: read again, I did flame you

'couldn't like you any less'

[ 06-04-2001: Message edited by: Waverly ]

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Mon Jun 04, 2001 7:30 am

I guess i will have to report you to Buck then....

Creation'ism' works as a principle better for me than Evolution does, + evolutions doctrines are somewhat racist.

Waverly · Post by **Waverly** » Mon Jun 04, 2001 7:44 am

Yes, just ignore the caps and click away at my link. It's there for your convenience.

You missed my point. The fact that nature is dynamic and orgainsims change needn't be debated. I'll ask again: do you really take exception to 'evolution' (ie change) not to be confused with the theories that explain how and why change happens (ie natural selection, creation science, etc.)?

[ 06-04-2001: Message edited by: Waverly ]

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Mon Jun 04, 2001 8:22 am

I think putting them all in one bag is dangerous, the original title of Darwins theory was called 'improvement of the species through natural selection', anyone can see this is somewhat over-the-top and could lead to a confusion in morales (eg Aryan anyone

) I think that the 6000 years and natural slection are opposite philosiphies and can not be placed in the same context, natural selection takes time a lot more than 6000 years, if God could have created natural selection is the next obvious argument. I am sitting on the fence on this one.

I am not sure whether i have answered your question or not Wav, we could get into a Paxman esque debate here.

Waverly · Post by **Waverly** » Mon Jun 04, 2001 8:36 am

Originally posted by Mr Sleep:
<STRONG>I am not sure whether i have answered your question or not Wav, we could get into a Paxman esque debate here. </STRONG>

You know that you have not answered the question. Twice in a row no less...

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Tue Jun 05, 2001 4:50 am

I try my best

I do not take exception to evolution, i just take exception to people not appreciating the fact that it is a religion in it's self and should be treated as one.

Does that answer your question

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Tue Jun 05, 2001 4:55 am

@Sleep pleeeeeaaase don't make him ask you the same question 13 times

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Tue Jun 05, 2001 5:02 am

I wanted to see how long it would be before Wav actually started flaming me...

IT would all be sorted out if he asked his question in a way so i could do nothing but answer it with what he wanted to hear.

BTW does anyone know the word for when a slang term becomes generally used...

ie. Vaccum cleaner becoming called a Hoover even though that is the name of a company who produced them.

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Tue Jun 05, 2001 5:23 am

It would all be sorted out if you answered his question in a way that was actually an answer

Let me ask a question... Do you think that 'evolution' (if one takes it to mean the genetic change of organisms over generations) is a scientific fact, or a belief?

BTW, I can't think of the word you're looking for

but I will look it up in my thesaurus

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Tue Jun 05, 2001 5:29 am

But isn't evolution by definition an offset of natural selection.....just kidding....

I think i actually answered this question before.

Yes it is a belief and not scientific fact (IMO).

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Tue Jun 05, 2001 5:37 am

Finally! Thank you

But (as Waverly points out) evolution in this sense is an observable, quantifiable phenomenon. How do you equate that with being a belief rather than a fact?

I think neologism might be the word you're looking for (a new word or phrase; a new use of an established word), what do you think?