Ye Religion Thread

[[BTF]DeathStalker]

Now see, was that so hard.
But if you would have read my original post, it said this:

4. People everywhere criticizes the Bible says the world was created in six days when in fact it took millions of years. Obviously they didn

[reaper]

dude, i'm not arguing with you anymore.  your obviously a lunatic
there are countless other ways the bible contradicts reason and science, none of which i will waste my time getting into
but i will say this
if one day to god is thousands (x number) of years , making reference to six days doesn't make sense -from any point of view
you figure they could at least make their make believe story logical, but give them a little credit, it's hard to make up something and have it stand the test of time


when you pick up other books in the fiction section do you believe them as fact to

[reaper]

i'm sorry deathstalker, i don't mean to be rude. just understand this is like arguing that if you stab someone in the face they won't die or be hurt

[[BTF]DeathStalker]

i'm sorry deathstalker, i don't mean to be rude. just understand this is like arguing that if you stab someone in the face they won't die or be hurt

LOL
Don't sweat it.
That's why I tend to avoid these types of threads. It can tend to get a little EMO for true believers AND non-believers alike.

[Laurelin]

I have an issue with this though.

If 'days' in Genesis can be construed as 'millions of years' (so as to approve evolution). Doesn't it contradict itself then in the sense that there were homosapiens before Adam's creation (human fossils dated from hundred of years BC (aren't these strong evidences for the earth's old age?)) - and that there was 'death', concept that only came after Adam's fall, and so discrediting the whole 'sin came into the world' teachings of the bible.

So how do you believe in evolution and in the bible at the same time?

Basically you would have to not believe in the fossils evidences (any type of death evidence dated earlier than 6000yrs ago) but still believe in evolution.

I just confused myself there.

Regards,

[DaHanG]

belief that the earth is 6,000 years old is really just pushing it...

[[BTF]DeathStalker]

I have an issue with this though.

If 'days' in Genesis can be construed as 'millions of years' (so as to approve evolution). Doesn't it contradict itself then in the sense that there were homosapiens before Adam's creation (human fossils dated from hundred of years BC (aren't these strong evidences for the earth's old age?)) - and that there was 'death', concept that only came after Adam's fall, and so discrediting the whole 'sin came into the world' teachings of the bible.

So how do you believe in evolution and in the bible at the same time?

Basically you would have to not believe in the fossils evidences (any type of death evidence dated earlier than 6000yrs ago) but still believe in evolution.

I just confused myself there.

Regards,

The whole 6000 year thing came from the time Adam was made until Abraham was born. That's all. It has nothing to do with the age of man or the earth.
It's just the legth of time someone figured out between Adam and Abraham and then somehow got it twisted as a Biblical representation of the age of the earth and man.

[cyberneticimplant]

your obviously a lunatic

Agreed.

[QuakeDuke]

I have an issue with this though.
If 'days' in Genesis can be construed as 'millions of years' (so as to approve evolution). Doesn't it contradict itself then in the sense that there were homosapiens before Adam's creation (human fossils dated from hundred of years BC (aren't these strong evidences for the earth's old age?)) - and that there was 'death', concept that only came after Adam's fall, and so discrediting the whole 'sin came into the world' teachings of the bible.
So how do you believe in evolution and in the bible at the same time?
Basically you would have to not believe in the fossils evidences (any type of death evidence dated earlier than 6000yrs ago) but still believe in evolution.
I just confused myself there.
Regards,

Laurelin,

Hey, I'm glad to hear someone else besides me confuse theirselves   Good question, by the way.

Nowhere in the original languages, or, for that matter in the KJV [I don't want to get into a version fight - but I would be glad to dialog with those who were really interested, not just to "fuss" but learn] does the bible indicate when "in the beginning" took place, or how long adam and eve were in the garden or how many children they had before "the fall" (as you say, death only came after the fall) we only have record of those born "after" the fall. It could have easily encompassed millions of years and yet not detracted from God "originally" created everything in X days - in short, we have no idea of how long a period of time progressed between "creation" and where "recorded" times began.

Problems come when man instead of using Exegesis (the process of approaching Bible interpretation with a humble spirit, and an open mind - which few do) uses Eisegesis (bible interpretation where the interpreter tries to "force" the Bible to mean something that fits their existing belief or understanding of a particular issue or doctrine - which most do).

I suspect in the end we will all find we were wrong in some areas and what happened is rather different that what we all believe. **

QD

** This statement should not be construed as I am saying in any way that I am not a believer, that I made the decision to become a believer because I was "indoctrinated" as a child (I wasn't) or I am somehow or the other "undeducated"(I'm not). It means just what it says. NO ONE knows everything there is to know and I like to think I'm smart enough to realize I'm in the top 10 the quote "And if any man think that he knows any thing, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know." speaks of.

[reaper]

Problems come when man instead of using Exegesis (the process of approaching Bible interpretation with a humble spirit, and an open mind - which few do) uses Eisegesis (bible interpretation where the interpreter tries to "force" the Bible to mean something that fits their existing belief or understanding of a particular issue or doctrine - which most do).

it's extrodinary that someone in the modern world, could rationalize the bible as the word of god.
that is to say ... believing in the bible

quakeduke, this is why the bible has problems
man writes a book, makes up how the world was created, rules for man, answers to what happens after we die.

[DaHanG]

i must
agree
with reaper
although it
pains me to do
so.

[jägermonsta]

For the most part, I think the bible is a load of crap... but I guess it's good in some ways.

It kind of gives people a guideline on how to live peacefully. Is that a bad thing?

Don't murder, don't steal, don't cheat on your significant other, don't fuck with your neighbor etc... I mean now you think of that stuff as being something that isn't necessary to be said. Like we are all born with the idea of those things being wrong. At the time this thing was written, I'm sure those are some key issues that had to be addressed, otherwise I believe it would be a different world today (even though half the "don't do's" are done every single day).

Gives people something to follow... makes them happy, a reason to enjoy life I guess. Gives them the simple answers...

Not my cup o tea really... but I'm not going to bash people for following some of the guidance in the bible. However if you honestly believe god made this universe and everything in it then you're just lying to yourself.

[reaper]

[quote="j

[jägermonsta]

You gotta watch some Naked Science on the National Geographic channel. Watch the birth of the universe episode, shit blows my mind. They have all kinds of neat episodes that Christians sure love to watch. 

Normally I'm not one for educational anything... but I find it very interesting, I guess I didn't pay attention much in high school

[reaper]

yeah the universe and shit is pretty crazy ; p .