Religious/Evolutionary Debate Thread
- Thread starter QUALTHWAR
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
Reign, I appreciate your post, but I take issue with your summations of my efforts. Sunday school teachers may have answers to questions, but that doesn’t mean they have the correct answers.
What does “the word Christ means bla bla bla” have to do with anything? It would only be relevant if jesus had special powers. There’s no proof Jesus had any special powers. I don’t believe he had special powers before or after a baptism.
All I hear is “the bible is the word of god.” Over and over again people say this. I’ve heard this for as long as I can remember. As I see it, it’s simple: it’s either the word of god, or it’s not. If it’s not the word of a god, then it’s the word of man.
It’s easy to find all sorts of stuff about books that were omitted from the bible doing a google search. Doesn’t that strike you as odd? Here you have some book that’s supposed to be the word of god, but we are going to omit some of his word. Some books that were written shed religion in a bad light, so they were rejected. But what’s interesting are the books that were omitted because they weren’t finished in time. Here’s just one of many links that talk about omitted books: http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/outside.stm
Oh, gee, we’ve compiled these books that are the word of god, but others weren’t ready when it was time to go to the presses. We’ll just tell god that we couldn’t wait and had to get this stuff off to the printers, and that there’s probably enough stuff in the bible anyway to believe in you. So, don’t worry about it.
You mention that there is no proof for human evolution. Are you serious? There all kinds of evidence for human evolution. Man, just do a little research on the matter; you’ll be overwhelmed by the evidence. To the contrary, there’s no proof of god. I can point to fossils, but I can’t point to god.
Haven't you heard about the findings with the dead sea scrolls? How deeply religious scholars were working on the project, some for years, and how they were discovering that jesus was basically a troublemaker (I think they called him a rebel) and how references to “the holy one” really meant john the Baptist? These men had devoted their entire lives to god and now they are learning that jesus was basically just a regular person. These findings troubled the scholars so much that many of them left the project.
They found out why the bible uses a plural version of a city at times. It was something like Jerusalem and Jerusalems. This was because jesus and others were fed up with the rules and politics of the city and decided to go off and start their own city. The scholars discovered that the word angel was used like you would use the word knight. It was just a designation given to someone; not someone with special powers. The scholars found a bunch of troubling stuff.
Now, these deeply religious scholars didn’t want to learn these facts, but the facts were right there for all to see. Here you have people who had believed in something for many years and were devoted to that belief and their world was turned upside down by their own findings. If that isn’t compelling, I don’t know what is.
What does “the word Christ means bla bla bla” have to do with anything? It would only be relevant if jesus had special powers. There’s no proof Jesus had any special powers. I don’t believe he had special powers before or after a baptism.
All I hear is “the bible is the word of god.” Over and over again people say this. I’ve heard this for as long as I can remember. As I see it, it’s simple: it’s either the word of god, or it’s not. If it’s not the word of a god, then it’s the word of man.
It’s easy to find all sorts of stuff about books that were omitted from the bible doing a google search. Doesn’t that strike you as odd? Here you have some book that’s supposed to be the word of god, but we are going to omit some of his word. Some books that were written shed religion in a bad light, so they were rejected. But what’s interesting are the books that were omitted because they weren’t finished in time. Here’s just one of many links that talk about omitted books: http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/outside.stm
Oh, gee, we’ve compiled these books that are the word of god, but others weren’t ready when it was time to go to the presses. We’ll just tell god that we couldn’t wait and had to get this stuff off to the printers, and that there’s probably enough stuff in the bible anyway to believe in you. So, don’t worry about it.
You mention that there is no proof for human evolution. Are you serious? There all kinds of evidence for human evolution. Man, just do a little research on the matter; you’ll be overwhelmed by the evidence. To the contrary, there’s no proof of god. I can point to fossils, but I can’t point to god.
Haven't you heard about the findings with the dead sea scrolls? How deeply religious scholars were working on the project, some for years, and how they were discovering that jesus was basically a troublemaker (I think they called him a rebel) and how references to “the holy one” really meant john the Baptist? These men had devoted their entire lives to god and now they are learning that jesus was basically just a regular person. These findings troubled the scholars so much that many of them left the project.
They found out why the bible uses a plural version of a city at times. It was something like Jerusalem and Jerusalems. This was because jesus and others were fed up with the rules and politics of the city and decided to go off and start their own city. The scholars discovered that the word angel was used like you would use the word knight. It was just a designation given to someone; not someone with special powers. The scholars found a bunch of troubling stuff.
Now, these deeply religious scholars didn’t want to learn these facts, but the facts were right there for all to see. Here you have people who had believed in something for many years and were devoted to that belief and their world was turned upside down by their own findings. If that isn’t compelling, I don’t know what is.
Even if you were to look at the Biblical scriptures as a work of fiction or fable, even a fable must have some level of coherent continuity in order to be accepted. What I'm telling you is that the scriptures contained with in the Bible have that very quality. Does the presence of such a quality prove that the scriptures are true? No, if course not but it does establish a legitimate reason for what was put in and what was rejected when the Biblical canon was being considered. I went into the meaning of the word Christ in order to establish a legitimate contextual reason why the "infancy gospel of Thomas" was definitely a false account. Since you say that you don't believe that Jesus had any special powers, you can look at it from a literary perspective an see why something like the"infancy gospel" just doesn't fit.
People say a lot of things, which is why I have always found it necessary to go beyond what they say or what is widely accepted. In many religious circles, I'm sure that I would be considered a heretic because I actually believe that one should challenge the "system"of belief and interpretation. That's one of the reasons that I possess what I consider to be a deeper and more complete understanding of the living contextual flow of the scriptures. Please note that I said scriptures and not Bible. You keep saying that all you hear is people saying that the Bible is the word of God but you have to understand what that statement actually means in the proper context. In one of my first post, I established that...
Once you differentiate between the Bible and the Holy scriptures that it contains, you can address the issue with the proper focus. The question can never be whether or not the Bible is the Word of God or the word of Man. The question must be, are the scriptures themselves the Word of God or the word of Man. This is not merely a matter of syntax or word play because it has been demonstrated that when nay sayers question whether the Bible is "legit", they often ask the wrong follow up questions and reach the wrong conclusions. One such conclusion is the one you stated:
and
.
In the first instance, you appear to be making the mistake of considering a Bible to be a single work that was written buy some final prophet who had God whispering in his ear and thus contains the sum and total of His Word or something. Since that is not the case, any conclusions or questions along those lines are flawed by default. A Bible isn't a Bible until the canon process governing the authentication of selected materials is complete and closed. In order to support the premise that something was "omitted" you have to first prove that it was accepted to begin with and then dropped in a later canon. Failing to do that, your premise doesn't hold up. The Holy Bible is in essence "A Holy Collection of Scriptures in Book Form". As far as I know, the book of Mormon and the Qu ran are considered to be single works so your premise might apply to them but it just doesn't work with the Bible.
In the second quoted instance, you follow the same premise and in doing so, reached an inappropriate conclusion. If the Bible were in and of itself, one ancient scripture thought to be the spoken Word of God and parts of that Bible were omitted to create a new Bible, then you could say that books of the Bible were omitted. You could also question why they were omitted like when you say "books were omitted because they weren't finished in time". As I've stated though, such statements don't apply to the Bible. Non inclusion and omission are two different things. As to the aspect of the question that can be addressed, according to the web site that you pointed to, books of the Bible were not omitted at all. The site says that "different ancient texts were excluded." In fact, the title of the web page itself clearly says "The Bible: Why Some Ancient Texts Were Excluded" and not "why books of the Bible were omitted". As to the question of text not being "finished in time", the web site doesn't say that. The site says that "Some well-regarded books (texts) were written too late and/or not believed to be apostolic, so they were not included." "Written too late" doesn't equal "not finished in time" in the context that you presented it. An example of something written too late in the context that it is presented on that site would be, if I right now, tried to submit the book of Mormon for inclusion into the canon. Clearly it was written too late to be considered, several hundred years too late for that matter.
As I've explained, It wasn't a matter of text not being ready "on time" but rather the text in question were written too far out side of the time period that the original apostolic letters were believed to have been written. In any case, if all the Bible consisted of were the four gospels and the book of Acts, it would be no less valid.
Proof and evidence are to different things. I didn't say that there is no evidence, I said that there is no proof and there isn't. If this were a murder trial, for example and I told the jury that I had evidence that you killed long lost forum member AeroBlaster, I would present the objects and info that I claim, show that you did it. Your defense attorney would then dispute my interpretation of the data presented, in an attempt to make it clear that the data does not show that you did it. In other words, the findings are in dispute by virtue of the fact that it is evidence and nothing more. An example of proof however, would be a video tape of you entering AeroBlasters house and beating him to death with a large trout. There would be no dispute about your guilt in the presence of proof. There is no proof of human evolution nor can there be proof of any standing theory because as soon as proof is introduced, it ceases to be a theory and is clearly recognized as fact. That's one of the reasons why string theory for instance, can't be proven although there is evidence to support the theory.
As I've established, pointing to fossils proves nothing and pointing to God is as easy as the very act of pointing itself. After all, He is everywhere. Anyhow,as I've said many times before, the proof of God is that His Word produces what it promises, every time it is acted on in faith. This is guaranteed, so either the super natural power that I have developed by faith over the years is proof that God exists and the Bible contains His living Word or it is proof that I am God or at least some form of super being. Take your pick but I warn you, you don't want me to be God. I've never been exactly impresses with Humanity and I wouldn't mind wiping most of it out and starting over.
Well that's the problem right there you see. They were deeply religious as opposed to being deeply spiritual. The Pope is deeply religious but the poor guy doesn't have a clue. The living word of God is spiritual, understanding of His Word is spiritual because God Himself is a spirit. The faith it takes to understand the living flow of the scriptures is spiritual. The spiritual heights of wisdom and power that I have transcended to, can not be learned in some theology class nor can it be achieved through religious regulations and conformity.
But lets say that you don't believe any if my statements of spiritual prowess. That's fine because those deeply religious scholars you mentioned would not believe it either. Not because my claims are so "over the top" and somehow out of line with what the Word if God promises but simply because it goes against their deeply religious programming. The Jewish Pharisees, who were religious scholars themselves, were the same way when Jesus would attempt to enlighten them. Therefore I don't put much stock in what deeply religious people think one way or the other. Whether some scholars decided to leave some project or not is completely irrelevant. Furthermore, I wouldn't put faith in their ability to discover water if they were drowning in the middle of the ocean, let alone whether or not the dead sea scrolls are even relevant. Much like the infancy gospel of Thomas, if it don't flow, it's got to go.
On the contrary, according to you, these men devoted their entire lives to religion and not God. That's like saying that a nun has dedicated her life to God when in fact, God has nothing to do with it. They have given their lives over to some religious sect and con themselves into believing that God is somehow impressed with their vows of silence, vows of poverty and hail Mary's. God's living word doesn't sanction any of that stuff. Have such people done good in the world? In some cases yes but not through devotion to God. What they do, think and teach are done through their devotion to their religion. They use the name of God but there is unfortunately more religion in them than God.
I'm not the least bit compelled.
Religion says that all people are God's children but the Word of God says no such thing. The scriptures establish that Jesus was the only begotten son of God before He died for our sins. After resurrection however, Jesus is there after referred to as the first born of many brothers. That is what being born again refers to. You are spiritually reborn into the family of God through Jesus. Without Him, you cannot be a child of God, merely a creation.QUALTHWAR said:
Hmmm, that's funny. I've always heard that we are all god's children. I guess all those religious people have it wrong.Reign said:
Proof and evidence are to different things. I didn't say that there is no evidence, I said that there is no proof and there isn't. If this were a murder trial, for example and I told the jury that I had evidence that you killed long lost forum member AeroBlaster, I would present the objects and info that I claim, show that you did it. Your defense attorney would then dispute my interpretation of the data presented, in an attempt to make it clear that the data does not show that you did it.
Well Qualthwar's defense better try alot harder then...
Hmmm, that's funny. I've always heard that we are all god's children. I guess all those religious people have it wrong.
I've been taught that as well.
Well Qualthwar's defense better try alot harder then...
Hmmm, that's funny. I've always heard that we are all god's children. I guess all those religious people have it wrong.
I've been taught that as well.
A couple of quotes by you:Reign said:
“The site says that "different ancient texts were excluded." In fact, the title of the web page itself clearly says "The Bible: Why Some Ancient Texts Were Excluded" and not "why books of the Bible were omitted".”
….and….
“The question can never be whether or not the Bible is the Word of God or the word of Man. The question must be, are the scriptures themselves the Word of God or the word of Man.”
Yeah, I’ve spoken with religious people who try to pull stuff like this. “Oh, you said omit and not exclude.” You know full well the point I’m making and you try to draw focus away from the facts by responding the way you do.
I know the bible isn’t written by one person. It’s collection of stories that’s been put together to make a book. It strikes me funny that the Noah story is extremely similar to many, more ancient, stories about a similar flood that wipes out mankind; the legend of Gilgamesh being a prime example. In my opinion, the Noah flood is nothing more than an ancient story retold; a story that’s supposed to teach some meaning, as opposed to an actual event. But instead, religious people dodge these close similarities between ancient stories and side-step to something like: The question is whether or not the scriptures are the word of god, as opposed to the bible being the word of god.
Then you go on about “proof” and “evidence” being two different things. So, if the cops come out to your home because your neighbor’s dog crapped on your doorstep and they say to you, “Do you have any proof that it was the neighbor’s dog?” you are going to respond differently compared to them asking, “Do you have any evidence that it was the neighbor’s dog?”
Are going to go off on some tangent and explain to them you’re not sure of their question, because one word could be taken to mean this and the other word could mean that? Give it a rest. You know what they mean.
Then you have: “On the contrary, according to you, these men devoted their entire lives to religion and not God.”
Okay, when you want to have a serious debate, let me know. In the mean time, I have other things to do.
Clearly not. In any case, after your last post, I can see that my origional assesment of your motives was correct after all. You play around with the obvious context and meaning of words and phrases and then cry foul when you are called on it and corrected. Hey, whatever man. Good luck finding whatever it is you are really looking for.QUALTHWAR said:
You didn’t say anything. You didn’t post anything with any substance. You try to say that this word and that word doesn’t mean exactly the same thing, therefore the point I’m trying to make is wrong. That’s no argument. Why don’t you pick out some of the issues I raised and try and come up with a good rebuttal? Something that makes enough sense that it seems as though you’re making a persuasive argument.
I talked about incest, flood stories, fossils and how the same people who believe in science enough to use plastic cups and CAT scans choose not to believe when science tells them a fossil is 80-billion years old. How a book that’s supposed to be so important and authoritative as the bible is complied and made so ambiguous that we get all these different religions. How people in the same denominations believe in different interpretations of the bible. Stuff like that sends up a red flag, and you add to issues by saying you don’t really believe this religious view or that one. That you could be labeled a heretic by some. Those are real problems, baggage if you will, that the bible and religion has associations with.
I talked about incest, flood stories, fossils and how the same people who believe in science enough to use plastic cups and CAT scans choose not to believe when science tells them a fossil is 80-billion years old. How a book that’s supposed to be so important and authoritative as the bible is complied and made so ambiguous that we get all these different religions. How people in the same denominations believe in different interpretations of the bible. Stuff like that sends up a red flag, and you add to issues by saying you don’t really believe this religious view or that one. That you could be labeled a heretic by some. Those are real problems, baggage if you will, that the bible and religion has associations with.
After reading Reign's last few posts I think it's safe to say the evolutionists win this round.
Too bad there aren't any sunday school teachers here, because they could have answered all our questions clearly.
Last edited:
Evolutionists already won the war anyway. Creationists can whine all they want, but evolutionists were the underdogs originally, and they won the world over.
Some creationists like to see themselves as suppressed rebels, but they really are just losers latching on to a supersition the majority has discarded long since.
Their arguments are only good for entertainment value.
Some creationists like to see themselves as suppressed rebels, but they really are just losers latching on to a supersition the majority has discarded long since.
Their arguments are only good for entertainment value.
Well, i would say if this were a court of law, religion would be in trouble. Evolution could bring to the table a lot of evidense, and religion would be stuck trying to say the bible says this and that, for the most part.
But as i've said before: both religion and evolution share the same problem, and that is... how everything got started in the first place. God has to be something, so where did that something come from? The point of energy that created the big bang had to come from something, so where did that something come from?
But as i've said before: both religion and evolution share the same problem, and that is... how everything got started in the first place. God has to be something, so where did that something come from? The point of energy that created the big bang had to come from something, so where did that something come from?
Last edited:
They're both systems built on an unknown prime mover. That's why they're both subject to flaws and why you can't preach either as absolute.
Right. But if i had to pick which way to lean, i'm going to lean towards evolution because of all the evidense.
Frostblood said:
The Hebrew phrase (due to "font" I have supplied the phrase as best as possible(elleh toledot) is traditionally translated as "these are the generations of" because the noun was derived from the verb "beget." Its usage, however, shows that it introduces more than genealogies; it begins a narrative that traces what became of the entity or individual mentioned in the heading. In fact, a good paraphrase of this heading would be: "This is what became of the heavens and the earth," for what follows is not another account of creation but a tracing of events from creation through the fall and judgment (the section extends from 2:4 through 4:26). See M. H. Woudstra, "The Toledot of the Book of Genesis and Their Redemptive-Historical Significance," CTJ 5 (1970): 184-89.
The expression this is the account of is an important title used throughout the Book of Genesis, serving as the organizing principle of the work. It is always a heading, introducing the subject matter that is to come. From the starting point of the title, the narrative traces the genealogy or the records or the particulars involved. Although some would make the heading in 2:4 a summary of creation (1:1-2:3), that goes against the usage in the book. As a heading it introduces the theme of the next section, the particulars about this creation that God made. Genesis 2 is not a simple parallel account of creation; rather, beginning with the account of the creation of man and women, the narrative tells what became of that creation. As a beginning, the construction of 2:4-7 forms a fine parallel to the construction of 1:1-3. The subject matter of each (again supplied(toledot) ("this is the account of") section of the book traces a decline or a deterioration through to the next beginning point, and each is thereby a microcosm of the book which begins with divine blessing in the garden, and ends with a coffin in Egypt. So, what became of the creation? Gen 2:4-4:26 will explain that sin entered the world and all but destroyed God's perfect creation.
Qualthwar said:
Frostblood said:
You are correct, there were other empires or dynasties if you will. I used "world powers" in a relative not literal sense, as in literally dominating the whole world, be that as it may many historians regarded these as world dominating powers, but staying within the context of the prophecy it was given to and about Nebuchadnezzar, his kingdom and empire and what would befall it. History indeed does corroborate Daniels vision as it pertained to the kingdom of Babylon, being the (head of gold). Was conquered by Mede-Persia (chest and arms of silver). Which in turn was conquered by Greece (belly and thighs of bronze). Finally Rome (legs of iron) conquered Greece. Now the feet were described as "Daniel 2:41 in that you were seeing feet and toes partly of wet clay and partly of iron, so this will be a divided kingdom. Some of the strength of iron will be in it, for you saw iron mixed with wet clay. 2:42 In that the toes of the feet were partly of iron and partly of clay, the latter stages of this kingdom will be partly strong and partly fragile. 2:43 And in that you saw iron mixed with wet clay, so people will be mixed with one another without adhering to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay." As I stated in my prior post Rome was not conquered it destroyed from within and divided into ten divisions as indicated by the ten toes and these divisions were; 1.Anglo-Saxons 2.Franks 3.Alemanni 4.Lombards 5.Ostrogoths 6.Visogoths 7.Burgundians 8.Vandals 9.Suevi 10.Heruli.
Now the vision Daniel has in chapter 7 expands on Nebuchadnezzar's' vision. This time the same previous empires are symbolically represented as beast, Babylon (lion with eagles' wings), Mede-Persia (bear raised up on one side, with three ribs in its mouth), and Greece (a leopard, with four bird-like wings on its back. This beast had four heads). A side note, a leopard is fast but a leopard with four wings would be extremely fast, this aptly describes the speed in which Alexander the Great conquered his enemies. Also, when he died his kingdom was divided by four Generals. Rome (a fourth beast appeared-one dreadful, terrible, and very strong. It had two large rows of iron teeth. It devoured and crushed, and anything that was left it trampled with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that came before it, and it had ten horns.
7:8 "As I was contemplating the horns, another horn-a small one-came up between them, and three of the former horns were torn out by the roots to make room for it. This horn had eyes resembling human eyes and a mouth speaking arrogant things. As it can be seen this fourth beast still bears a direct relationship to the statue as in it teeth are made out of iron, also the ten divisions of Rome a represented by horns instead of toes. Now here is the interesting part it says three of the horns were torn out by its root by a small horn that came up among the ten. Now it is a historical fact that the Roman Catholic Church destroyed the nations of the Heruli 493 AD, Vandals 534 AD, and in Ostrogoths 538 AD. It was not the Papacy who actually did the fighting, but it was the Papacy hired mercenaries to destroy them.
Frostblood said:
Man was not supposed to die in the first place, it was mans sin that introduced death, the first death was the animal that lost its life when GOD clothed Adam and Eve. The second was through Abel when he offered a sacrifice to GOD. Clearly they understood atonement was needed to reconcile them to GOD. See the book of Hebrews for further clarification. This atonement was only represent by the blood of the lamb and could not be fulfilled by the blood of bull and goats. It took the death of Jesus a perfect sacrifice to fulfill the atonement and Reconcile Adam back to GOD. This is why understanding the purpose of the sanctuary is so important, there would be no confusion about death if it were properly understood.
Lazarus according to Jesus was asleep. "KJV John 11:11 These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep." To the thief on the cross Jesus said "NKJ Luke 23:43 And Jesus said to him, "Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise." I am sure you know when this was written there was no verse or punctuation. See what happens when you move the comma to the other side of today. NKJ Luke 23:43 And Jesus said to him, Assuredly, I say to you today, "you will be with Me in Paradise." The comma after today is much more consistent than placing it before the word today. 1. Jesus did not come out of the tomb until the first day of the week. 2.NKJ John 20:17 Jesus said to her, "Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.'" 3. How is it, the righteous dead are called out of the earth to meet Jesus if they are already living in heaven?
Frostblood said:
As I have stated before most people including so called theologians do not know the bible. Ask a hundred professing Christians if there is a second death, and what is it? See if these same people do not look at you as though you are crazy. In short, having been reconciled to GOD, puts man back in his original state. This is living with GOD forever. So yes the Old Testament speaks abundantly of a resurrection, but for further proof read Ezekiel chapter 37 it explains a resurrection in pretty much glowing terms of specificity.
Frostblood said:
As far as when Daniel was written there seems to be two schools of thought 600 BC and 200 BC. The time of the last extant copy of the Old Testament seems to be about 200 BC, this in no way can be used as a confirmation about being the first written copies.
P.S. I apologize for the untimely response.
Last edited: